You really should have some form of mental health assessment. This is extremist dogmatism. Everyone with whom you disagree is “scum” or homophobic even when this is transparently wrong and falsifiable.

Or if it is reasonable, it is no less reasonable than the deduction that YOU have a homophobic agenda, since you so evidently wish to discredit a site that, whatever its failings, is patently on the right side.

How on earth can you accuse Ben of homophobia? On the contrary. Nobody likes to read negative articles about gay people but some of us need a reality check. Not all of us are squeaky clean and virtuous. We’re just as flawed as straight people, prone to the same wreckless behavior and to deny otherwise is irresponsible. There were some among us who opposed equal marriage, Andrew Pierce among others. Would it have been wrong for PN to publish that? It’s better to know about one’s enemies than pretend they are not there and to acknowledge that some of our own make silly mistakes too. Of course, the Daily Mail is homophobic and will exploit anything negative about the LGBT community to its own end, but don’t lambast PN for printing something that doesn’t quite sit right with your comfort level. That’s what responsible journalism is all about, publishing both sides. If PN hadn’t published it, do you really think that the DM wouldn’t make hay out of that too?

I imagine PN ‘markets’ this as news for the same reason other media outlets do. The man in question is being investigated for illegal activity. He held a powerful position at a failing financial institution and also seemingly was deceiving those he worked with in the church, THT and at the drugs charity. That there is now a ‘gay’ element to the story means that for PN to ignore it they would be falling in their remit as a news outlet to the LGBT community.

The comments about PNs homophobic agenda are bizarre. Some gay people do stupid, illegal things. If you’re not able to accept that then look out, you’re going to get screwed over, and not in a good way.

How has he “let us all down”? Gay people aren’t a monolith, and people who think they are aren’t worth bothering with – who cares about ~bolstering them? They’re not going to change their minds, even if every single one of us was a saint (however one even defines that), so why not just ignore them and have fun?

I’ve now read articles about Paul Flowers in a variety of newspapers and online sites. Without doubt, this PinkNews headline stand out as the most focused on the sexuality of Mr Flowers and just about the only headline I’ve seen that focuses on the sex-party dimension. Perhaps that’s because PinkNews is interest on gay issues, but that doesn’t justify the concentration on the ‘gay orgy”. No other outlet even mentioned the “gay orgy”. So why should PinkNews? I’m concerned about that. Frankly, PinkNews have offered up the most sleazy version of this story.

A second point. The man who exposed Paul Flowers is in no moral position to lecture him or anyone else as a hypocrite. After all, Stuart Davies participated, by his own admission, in the purchase of drugs himself. His motivation may have been financial (I wonder how much blood money he took form the Mail), I don’t know. But I know his actions have destroyed another gay man who did nothing more or less than he was doing himself.

If this story is true Mr Flowers has betrayed the trust of a lot of people. Rightly or wrongly, as chairman of a bank proud of its ethical policy, there are expectations of trustworthiness. If he has broken the law he should be held accountable. Otherwise, what he gets up to in his private life is none of my business. I changed in recent years to bank with the Co-op precisely because of its ethical banking policies. If Mr Flowers’ behaviour in his private life has affected his judgement in his professional capacity does that then become some of my business? I hope not. Whether it is through the behaviour of the chairman or simply bad luck in acquiring Britannia’s debts, I have seen the “ethical” bank to which I have entrusted my business sell a large number of shares to interests that are probably incompatible with the bank’s long held mission. That is my business. The bank has a duty to explore whether the chairman took his eye off the ball. That’s surely what really matters?

I agree with this absolutely. I’ve been a customer of the Co-op since the 70s, precisely because of their ethical stance. And I do believe that the personal is political, to dig out an old feminist tenet. I’m obviously not concerned about Mr Flowers being gay, but exploitation of young people and gross drug/drink abuse are not compatible with leading any organisation, and certainly not an ethical bank. I think the young guy is scum too, by the way, for capitalising on Mr Flowers’ weakness. Did he set the thing up from the start? But the sad fact is that it will be Co-op customers and Co-op frontline staff – who give excellent service, by the way: their telephone banking service is second to none – who lose out. These ego-driven power hungry men make me sick.

Who’s to say young gay men were “abused” in any way. He used this supposed high profile status to his advantage but there are no indications that anyone was forced to take part in any activities unwillingly.

A Labour councillor was appointed to the chairmanship of a bank weeks before the general election Labour knew it was going to lose, a bank to which the Labour party owes £3 million, despite that man never having ever had any experience or skills in the banking or any commercial sector.

The man donates £50 grand to Ed Balls after he becomes chairman of the bank from bank funds.
So the government appoints / approves one of their own to a bank to which they owe millions. How cosy.

If this was a Tory councillor behaving like this the lefties on this forum would be screeching to high heaven. Instead they just screech about the Mail. And who was this Labour MP who asked him about his “Columbian cold” in Parliament? Bit of a Balls up to be overheard.

As a point of fact, the directors of a bank must be approved by the government regulator. Given that Flowers had almost no experience in banking, his approval from the government as chairman of the bank would seem rather unusual.

Am I being naive to think that being voted in as Chair of a Bank isn’t an administrative position but a ceremonial/custodial one?
If it were, then surely the BANK should have vetted all/any candidates for that position.

Essentially a Chair is just the person who runs a committee to ensure all voices are heard and people have a say. There is nothing implicit ordinarily with the position which indicates power. Am I wrong in thinking this is no different in this case?